Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

[Wgw]

True. The rule is not "is it popular" the rule is "does the Bible condone... or condemn it"

-- "Sola scriptura" testing of all doctrine and tradition

The proper test of all doctrine and tradition is whether or not it is accepted by the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

 

[BobRyan]

The proper test of all doctrine and tradition is whether or not it is accepted by the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

That is how the Jews thought of it in Mark 7:6-13. But there Christ introduced another idea - one based on the Word of God. - "Moses Said" -- as Christ points out.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
I do get that sometimes from people that have not read her books.

She wrote - that she did believe in the Bible as the rule for testing all doctrine.

===================================

"The Bible, and the Bible alone, is to be the rule of our faith. It is a leaf from the tree of life, and by eating it, by receiving it into our minds, we shall grow strong to do the will of God. By our Christlike characters we shall show that we believe the word, that we cleave to the Bible as the only guide to heaven. So shall we be living epistles, known and read of all men, bearing a living testimony to the power of true religion. {RH May 4, 1897, par. 9}"

All Orthodox doctrine is Biblically based and justified.

If that were true you would welcome the opportunity to demonstrate the "sola scriptura" test shows that tradition , that doctrine - to be valid -- instead of opposing sola-scriptura testing with every post.

The proof to the contrary is in your own posted solution.

 

[BobRyan]

Root of Jesse said: ↑
I find that hard to believe. Where's the table of contents of your Bible come from?

Is it your claim that the Bible refutes the table of contents - or that the table of contents is condemned by the Bible??

I believe his point is rather the same that I have made, that the table of contents of the Bible is Tradition, since no actual book of the NT or OT provides a list of all the other valid books.

Again - you miss the point of the response. "Sola Scriptura" testing is done to determine if something is in harmony with -- or contradicts the Word of God.

If your claim is that the "index" to the Bible fails that test - you will need to show how that is so.

 

[Wgw]

Again - you miss the point of the response. "Sola Scriptura" testing is done to determine if something is in harmony with -- or contradicts the Word of God.

If your claim is that the "index" to the Bible fails that test - you will need to show how that is so.

Once again, the Word of God is Jesus Christ (John 1:1-14). The scriptures do not contain a table of contents; rather this is provided in the case of the New Testament by St. Athanasius. St. Athanasius was an enthusiastic supporter of monasticism, and the biographer of St. Anthony; I have no doubt you would regard the monastic institution as unscriptural (which is an erroneous but quintessentially Protestant perspective). Which places you in the awkward position of using a canon compiled by someone whose motives were entirely comtrary to Adventism: St. Athanasius was the chief opponent of Arianism, was opposed to unauthorized heretical sects in his canonical territory, and was entirely and almost definitionally Orthodox in his views.

 

[BobRyan]

Once again, the Word of God is Jesus Christ (John 1:1-14).

Once Again "Moses Said" --> = "The Word of God" -- according to Christ in Mark 7:6-23.
And "holy men of old moved by the Holy Spirit - spoke from God" 2Peter 1:21.
And once again "The words that I SPEAK are spirit and are life" John 6.

It is Christ in Mark 7 that says "Moses said" is in fact "The Word of God" - the written word in this case.

The scriptures do not contain a table of contents;

That was not the question.

BobRyan said: ↑
Again - you miss the point of the response. "Sola Scriptura" testing is done to determine if something is in harmony with -- or contradicts the Word of God.

If your claim is that the "index" to the Bible fails that test - you will need to show how that is so.

rather this is provided in the case of the New Testament by St. Athanasius. St. Athanasius was an enthusiastic supporter of monasticism,

1. He did not write either the NT or the OT -- it is irrelevant and does not answer the point raised.

2. They were reading "all of scripture" while Christ was on earth - in the first century. Nobody waited around a few centuries to hear what Athanasius might want to say.

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

This thread is closed for staff review.

FLAMING is not okay

 

[David4223]

MOD HAT ON

This thread has undergone a cleanup.

Remember to address the content of a post and not attack the poster's character.

Treat others as you would like to be treated.

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Standing Up]

For those who believe the bible is not sufficient for salvific purposes, you'd have to follow the path rejected in the NT and in tradition at least since Irenaeus' time (c190). You'd have to think you/your denomination may improve on the apostles (AH III 1).

Of course you'll answer but my church only follows what the apostles said. But when asked to show that, they point to the bible and then to books written centuries after the apostles, thus still trying to improve on them. Besides, each of the churches that follow extra biblical teachings have all ended up with diametrically opposed salvific doctrines.

Scripture alone is sufficient for all things salvific. To assert otherwise is to believe God in His wisdom somehow forgot to inform the apostles of certain items so that we might be saved.

 

[Rick Otto]

The proper test of all doctrine and tradition is whether or not it is accepted by the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

That constitutes "proper" according to the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
The various holy Orthodox Churches which are also Apostolic, disagree.
They have pulled the rug of one truthiness out from under their feet, it would seem.

 

[Goatee]

For those who believe the bible is not sufficient for salvific purposes, you'd have to follow the path rejected in the NT and in tradition at least since Irenaeus' time (c190). You'd have to think you/your denomination may improve on the apostles (AH III 1).

Of course you'll answer but my church only follows what the apostles said. But when asked to show that, they point to the bible and then to books written centuries after the apostles, thus still trying to improve on them. Besides, each of the churches that follow extra biblical teachings have all ended up with diametrically opposed salvific doctrines.

Scripture alone is sufficient for all things salvific. To assert otherwise is to believe God in His wisdom somehow forgot to inform the apostles of certain items so that we might be saved.

So, what about all the miracles and teachings of Jesus that were not recorded? I believe they were handed down verbally through the ages. Via the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit that is alive today in the Catholic church!

 

[Rick Otto]

So, what about all the miracles and teachings of Jesus that were not recorded? I believe they were handed down verbally through the ages. Via the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit that is alive today in the Catholic church!

Hearsay.

 

[Goatee]

Hearsay.

John 21:25Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)
25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

 

[Rick Otto]

John 21:25Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)
25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

Right.
Nothing specific mentioned in authoritative writing, so specifics are hearsay.
Suggesting God or The Church gave us an inadequate publication? In what respect?

 

[Root of Jesse]

That was part of my earlier post. The church cannot change Purgatory without jeopardizing that little myth you just cited, but neither can it keep people believing in something like it's doctrine of Purgatory. As a result, it has unofficially junked it by constantly talking about Purgatory in non-traditional and almost benign terms, and that's something that's done from the Pope on down.

What "little myth"? I never cited a "little myth". The Church cannot change doctrine. Period. The Church has not junked Purgatory, officially or otherwise. It's just not true. The fact is that you will be refined as gold is refined-in fire. The fact is that, if you're in Purgatory, you're going to heaven. You really don't know how the Catholic Church works. That's very obvious.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Is it your claim that the Bible refutes the table of contents - or that the table of contents is condemned by the Bible??

The fact is that the Table of Contents, the Canon of Scripture, is not Biblical.

 

[Root of Jesse]

The Orthodox do not.

Neither do Catholics, though people, from Cardinals down to laity, would like to. The Church will not change its doctrine. People will fall away.

 

[Goatee]

Right.
Nothing specific mentioned in authoritative writing, so specifics are hearsay.
Suggesting God or The Church gave us an inadequate publication? In what respect?

So, what happened to all those sayings and miracles of Jesus? They just vanished into thin air! No. I very much doubt that!

 

[Root of Jesse]

BobRyan said: ↑
I do get that sometimes from people that have not read her books.

She wrote - that she did believe in the Bible as the rule for testing all doctrine.

===================================

"The Bible, and the Bible alone, is to be the rule of our faith. It is a leaf from the tree of life, and by eating it, by receiving it into our minds, we shall grow strong to do the will of God. By our Christlike characters we shall show that we believe the word, that we cleave to the Bible as the only guide to heaven. So shall we be living epistles, known and read of all men, bearing a living testimony to the power of true religion. {RH May 4, 1897, par. 9}"



If that were true you would welcome the opportunity to demonstrate the "sola scriptura" test shows that tradition , that doctrine - to be valid -- instead of opposing sola-scriptura testing with every post.

The proof to the contrary is in your own posted solution.

You cannot demonstrate it to anyone but a Protestant's satisfaction.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Again - you miss the point of the response. "Sola Scriptura" testing is done to determine if something is in harmony with -- or contradicts the Word of God.

If your claim is that the "index" to the Bible fails that test - you will need to show how that is so.

As I have said many times, every doctrine we have is Scripture tested and proven. Every doctrine we have is also proven by Sacred Tradition.